Published online: 2019-09-24

Case Report Interposed Bowel Loop during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement; Rare and Nightmare Irfan Ali Shera, Ram Chandra Soni

Department of Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is one of common means of enteral , Asian nutrition in day‑to‑day gastroenterology practice. However, PEG is associated Institute of Medical Science, Faridabad, Haryana, India with complications such as infection, buried bumper, interposed bowel loops, bstr a ct and colocutaneous fistula. Herein, we present a case of PEG tube placement A with interposed bowel loop in the gastric and parietal wall that was managed conservatively.

Keywords: Buried bumper syndrome, gastric wall, interposed bowel, parietal wall, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Introduction after tube replacement, patient presented with abdominal ercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding pain and watery for 1–2 weeks. His pulse Paccess is one of the widely performed endoscopic rate was 80 beats/min regular normovolemic equal procedures to fulfil nutritional needs in chronically in both limbs, blood pressure 110/80 mm Hg in all debilitated patients. Most widely used technique for limbs, general physical and systemic examination was PEG placement is gastric pull through from anterior normal. His hemoglobin was 10.5 g%, total leukocyte 3 abdominal wall. As with any invasive intervention, count was 5000/mm , serum urea was 12.8 mg/dl, PEG is also associated with complications including and serum creatinine was 1 mg/dl. Stool examination failure, infection, buried bumper, interposed bowel showed Entamoeba cysts and no trophozoites were loops, colocutaneous fistula, etc. At times, they are seen. All possible causes of persistent painful diarrhea

not worrisome and can be managed with expectant were ruled out by doing stool culture, stool serology, management, but when any serious complication rises, and sigmoidoscopy. The patient was managed with the prestige of clinician is also on the verge. We are symptomatic treatment though his diarrhea did not settle. presenting a case of PEG tube placement with interposed Hence, antibiotics were instituted presuming infective bowel loop in the gastric and parietal wall that was etiology of his persistent diarrhea. managed conservatively. Even after adding antibiotics pain abdomen and diarrhea did not settle so he was subjected for imaging like X‑ray Case Report abdomen and computed tomography (CT) abdomen. A 78‑year‑old man diagnosed the case of oropharyngeal X‑ray abdomen showed PEG tube migrated into large carcinoma was referred to gastroenterology clinic for bowel that was further confirmed on CT abdomen PEG tube placement to meet the nutritional need due showed interposed bowel loop between the stomach and to dysphagia and odynophagia. One year after tube anterior abdominal wall, as depicted in Figure 2a and b, placement, he presented with fever, pain abdomen, and respectively. The complication and consequences were his PEG insertion site was found infected as shown discussed with patient and attendants, and further need in Figure 1. It was managed with antiseptic dressing, parenteral antibiotics; temporary cessation of feeding Address for correspondence: Dr. Irfan Ali Shera, L‑90 Jal Vidyut Appartment, Sector 21‑C, Faridabad ‑ 121 001, and shifting on parenteral nutrition. After the antibiotic Haryana, India. course, his infection subsided. PEG was E‑mail: [email protected] replaced, and tube feeding reinstituted. Two months This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as Access this article online appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical Quick Response Code: terms. Website: www.jdeonline.in For reprints contact: [email protected]

How to cite this article: Shera IA, Soni RC. Interposed bowel loop during DOI: 10.4103/jde.JDE_78_17 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement; rare and nightmare. J Dig Endosc 2018;9:122-4.

122 © 2018 Journal of Digestive Endoscopy | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Shera and Soni: Interposed bowel loop during PEG placement

a b Figure 2: (a) X ray showing PEG tube migrated into bowel. (b) Axial section of CT showing internal bumper of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube

has been shown that is not very common.[3] Development Figure 1: Pus coming out of infected percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site of and appearance of signs of systemic inflammatory response needs urgent attention. of surgery was also been discussed with the patient, Wound infection at insertion site is generally managed meanwhile if was decided after discussion with family with the institution of antibiotic therapy, and tube to retrieve internal bumper through enteral route. His removal is not necessary. It is seen in chronically PEG tube was cut down and watched for bumper to depilated patients and those who did not receive pass through enteral route. The patient was kept nil per preprocedure antibiotic prophylaxis.[4] Interposed bowel oral for 12–24 h with watchful monitoring, 12 h later, loop in between stomach and the anterior abdominal the patient passed internal bumper with feces. After wall is rarely reported complication of PEG placement.[5] 2 days on parenteral nutrition, nasojejunal feeding This can be avoided by looking transillumination and tube was inserted. Postprocedure patient remained indentation before passing the needle and adequate hemodynamically stable, and no signs of systemic gastric inflation during passing needle. Gastric colonic inflammatory response were noted. His feeding was cutaneous fistula is a late complication due to interposed restored after 1 day and the patient was discharged from bowel loops, present as fever and diarrhea. The sigmoid hospital on next day with no abdominal or systemic colon is most frequently interposed bowel loop in complaints. these conditions. Patient with this condition is usually asymptomatic or had transient fever or initially Discussion but at later stage present with diarrhea. Expectant [1] Percutaneous PEG first described by Gauderer et al. in management after tube removal is adequate in most of 1980 is widely performed the interventional endoscopic the cases, but persistent colocutaneous fistula may need procedure to meet long‑term nutritional need in chronic surgery. debilitated patients suffering from stroke, cerebral palsy, head injuries, and advanced malignancies where There is a possible risk of tumor seeding also with PEG feeding and unmet nutritional supplementation is a big placement,[6‑8] but it may be a coincidental finding also concern for long‑term outcome. Replacement of these as in advanced stage almost any part, and organ can be feeding tubes is not too complex and relatively has low affected. [2] complication rate. In conclusion, our patient with diarrhea after PEG Absolute contraindication to place PEG feeding placement was diagnosed with a case of interposed tube is a significant oropharyngeal obstruction, overt bowel loops between the stomach and abdominal wall. coagulopathy or abdominal wall infections. Most of the The interposition of bowel loop in our case might have endoscopy related complications during PEG placement happened probably at the beginning of PEG insertion, and occurs due to cardiorespiratory compromise and the patient was asymptomatic until PEG site got infected. sedation‑related adverse events. Esophageal perforation Although rare complication of PEG placement and can during endoscopy is rare, and most of them are located be avoided using a combination of transillumination, in cervical and incidence is <0.1%. Benign indentation and adequate air insufflation. Expectant after PEG is common reported up management after tube removal is adequate at times, but to approximately 50% of cases and generally subsided surgical intervention may be needed in case of persistent with conservative management, but in a recent study, it SIRS and peritonitis.

Journal of Digestive Endoscopy ¦ Volume 9 ¦ Issue 3 ¦ July-September 2018 123 Shera and Soni: Interposed bowel loop during PEG placement

Declaration of patient consent associated with transcutaneous replacement of percutaneous The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate gastrostomy and jejunostomy feeding devices. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:784‑91. patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have 3. Dulabon GR, Abrams JE, Rutherford EJ. The incidence given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and and significance of free air after percutaneous endoscopic other clinical information to be reported in the journal. gastrostomy. Am Surg 2002;68:590‑3. The patients understand that their names and initials will 4. Jafri NS, Mahid SS, Minor KS, Idstein SR, Hornung CA, not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal Galandiuk S, et al. Meta‑analysis: Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent peristomal infection following percutaneous their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed. endoscopic gastrostomy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther Financial support and sponsorship 2007;25:647‑56. 5. Saltzberg DM, Anand K, Juvan P, Joffe I. Colocutaneous Nil. fistula: An unusual complication of percutaneous endoscopic Conflicts of interest gastrostomy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1987;11:86‑7. There are no conflicts of interest. 6. Khurana V, Singh T. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site metastasis in esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:612. References 7. Mincheff TV. Metastatic spread to a percutaneous gastrostomy 1. Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without site from head and neck cancer: Case report and literature laparotomy: A percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg review. JSLS 2005;9:466‑71. 1980;15:872‑5. 8. Sheykholeslami K, Thomas J, Chhabra N, Trang T, Rezaee R. 2. Nishiwaki S, Araki H, Fang JC, Hayashi M, Takada J, Metastasis of untreated head and neck cancer to percutaneous Iwashita M, et al. Retrospective analyses of complications gastrostomy tube exit sites. Am J Otolaryngol 2012;33:774‑8.

124 Journal of Digestive Endoscopy ¦ Volume 9 ¦ Issue 3 ¦ July-September 2018